Does appearance really affect an individual's chance of scoring the job they want?
I mean, I doubt that I'm the only one who has thought about this. Technically speaking, appearance isn't supposed to be a factor in the workplace. But employers are humans and don't all humans have a bias? Don't all employers have a preference or a plan to fill their workplace up with a specific type of people? Whether it's denying someone because they don't bring aesthetic diversity to the company or for just looking too rough, too artistic, or too preppy...it's hard to accept the idea that employers are so well trained that they are focusing 100% on the resumé and 0% on the looks.
It's hard to deny that career-related stereotypes exist and it doesn't take more than a quick google image search to confirm this.
What image pops in your head when you think about an aerobics instructor? Or a nurse?
.jpg)
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/aerobics(1).jpg
http://nursejobsvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/nurse_jobs_vancouver.jpg
After doing a quick scan of what images I saw when I searched "fitness instructor" and "nurse", the results looked a lot like these two photos. Aerobics instructors were predominately women who were very skinny, wearing classic yoga gear or a more revealing sports bra/shorts ensemble, and seemingly young and "fresh". The photos for nurses were almost all of women, all wearing scrubs, smiling, hair pulled back cleanly and neatly, and the stethoscope naturally in view.
Does Google Images answer all of my questions? Definitely not, however it really gets at what sorts of strong stereotypes we as humans have for different jobs and professions. That being said, because there are so many stereotypes in the workplace, it's understandable to claim that certain individuals do face discrimination in certain fields.
Let's go back to the fitness instructor example. What sorts of people could be disadvantaged by the aesthetic stereotypes in this field?
Take a look at this story:
Here is the classic example of job discrimination based on appearance. This prospective employee, Portnick, could have been the most dedicated employee Jazzercise had ever had. She might have had a stunning resume, filled with dozens upon dozens of experiences and qualifications making her fit for the job. But she was turned down just because she didn't "appear fit". I sometimes feel that people assume this sort of discrimination only goes on in very obviously aesthetically-based fields like modeling, for example. Portnick's story shows, however, that appearance may matter more to employers in all sorts of fields than many of us expect.
Take a look at this quote from the article:
"In a recent analysis, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis reviewed various economic studies to find possible links between looks and wages. The study's conclusion: A worker with below-average looks tended to earn significantly less -- on average 9% less -- per hour than an above-average-looking employee. And those with above-average looks tended to earn 5% more than their average-looking colleagues.
'If someone looks like Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts, and society values that, that attribute is built into wages," says Michael Owyang, an economist who worked on the analysis'."
Unbelievable, right? Not only does appearance affect the likelihood that an individual will get the job but it also affects how much money that individual will be making.
So is it inevitable? Will certain people merely be destined to receive lower wages than others? Should Portnick accept that she simply does not fit the mold and pursue something else? Each individual will have a unique answer to each of those questions. From my perspective though, discrimination based on appearance is superficial and hollow. Though someone may not look fit for a certain position or job, that doesn't mean they aren't capable of doing it or potentially able to redefine how the job is done. I know it sounds cliché, but I'm a firm believer that heart and passion are what stands out stronger than the way someone looks. But that's my take on it.
All that glitters isn't gold.
~Shakespeare, Tolkien
Agree? Disagree?
You can only control your appearance so much without going to extreme levels. I think that the only job that can actually base a salary off of your appearance is a modeling career. However, that is not the case for most of us. I don't think it is fair that one mechanic should make less than another because one is better looking. It doesn't matter what the mechanic looks like as long as they can fix my car. If someone is a businessman/woman then they should definitely dress appropriately for their job, but this should not affect their wages and they shouldn't have to think about getting plastic surgery so that they could make more money. It's definitely unfair.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Stephanie that it is unfair that bias exists and influences job seekers' opportunities, because most of our beauty is genetically passed on to us. How can we help it if we've been dealt a bad hand? Even all the plastic surgery, makeup, hair treatment, etc. in the world may not be able to reverse what nature bestowed upon us and make it look natural.
ReplyDeleteThat said, being born more beautiful than usual apparently also gives people an unfair advantage in life, a kind of privilege they in no way earned or worked towards.
However, I think that part of the advantage that good looks may bring people is a matter of confidence. When people notice they conform to society's image of beauty, and/or when they are told by many others that they are beautiful, they may become more self-confident. Less beautiful people (by society's standards) may become aware that society sees them as less beautiful and thus have less self-confidence if they are ever told that they are not beautiful, explicitly ("You're ugly") or implicitly ("Some makeup wouldn't do you harm").
I think this begs the question: what is there for beautiful and less beautiful people to do about this matter? Should less beautiful people invest in beauty treatments, or diet, or exercise to look more attractive? Should very beautiful people by society's standards take advantage of the cards they were dealt? I found one Senior Research Fellow in London's opinion on this matter interesting. She suggests that "beauty should be intentionally used as a tool for getting ahead at work – citing it as an 'economic premium'"(Monster).
Personally, I do not highly regard personal appearance when interacting with people. I instead value inner beauty, an aspect of beauty that society does not always consider in its evaluation of personal appearance. A person can be stunningly aesthetically beautiful, but if they are bitter, or unhappy, of what value are their good looks?
This makes me think that employers should weigh internal beauty as equally as external beauty. But then I wonder--if employers accepted the application of who they see as a very unattractive person, then might this be less advantageous than hiring an attractive person because of the negative bias that coworkers and other people that would do business with the less attractive person would have towards the person. Might a more attractive person build relationships in the workplace easier and form business contacts faster if they were more attractive? If we accept this viewpoint, then maybe employers subconsciously hiring more attractive people may also have a practical purpose.